But First, A Word From Our Sponsor:
Top Comments recognizes the previous day's Top Mojo and strives to promote each day's outstanding comments through nominations made by Kossacks like you. Please send comments (before 9:30pm ET) by email to topcomments@gmail.com or by our KosMail message board.
Make sure that you include the direct link to the comment (the URL), which is available by clicking on that comment's date/time. Please let us know your Daily Kos user name if you use email so we can credit you properly. If you send a writeup with the link, we can include that as well. The diarist poster reserves the right to edit all content.
Please come in. You're invited to make yourself at home! Join us beneath the doodle...
|
During a special Easter Sunday panel discussion about religion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos the dialogue quickly became a wholesale opportunity for bigotry against LGBT people to shine. The panel, led by Martha Raddatz, included Cokie Roberts, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, Dr. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and Ralph Reed, discredited religious grifter.
It didn't take long for Graham and Reed to use their airtime by hating it up good on gay people. The subject of Putin's crackdown on the LGBT community came up and Raddatz took the opportunity to toss in Graham's face his avowed admiration for Putin and his pogrom against gay people. However, as nauseating as Graham was, it was little Ralphie Reed who completely stole the show.
During Graham's shameless defense of Putin the subject turned to same-sex couples adopting children, which Graham lovingly calls recruitment. Reed takes this as the perfect opportunity to pull out the soundly discredited work of Mark Regnerus and begin spouting his completely debunked statistics that the religious right still laughingly clings to when cornered.
By the way Martha, the social science on this is clear. This isn’t about Vladimir Putin, this is about what’s best for children here in the United States and the social science is irrefutable: a child who grows up in a home without the mother and father present, and they both very unique procreative, nurturing, and socializing role, they’re nine times more likely to end up dropping out of high school; they’re five times more likely to end up in poverty; and they’re three times more likely to end up addicted to drugs and alcohol.
These are the very same stats that earned Regnerus one of the most
satisfying smack-downs in the history of satisfying smack-downs. Judge Bernard Friedman, in his recent ruling that Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, had this to say about Mark Regnerus and his putrid little study:
The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 'study' was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it 'essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society' and which 'was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.' While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged. Whatever Regnerus may have found in this 'study,' he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars, and that Regnerus’s own sociology department at the University of Texas has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus’s views in general.
That Reed would still be using the Regnerus study to justify his bigotry is no surprise. After all, lies are all they have left. Cokie Roberts then takes Reed to task with this beautifully stated moment:
But the social science is also irrefutable that a child raised in an orphanage is in much worse shape than a child raised in a home. And the fact that people are willing to take these children and raise them, and raise them in a loving way is clearly better for these children.
So, just seconds after stating that the "social science" was totally clear on the matter only to get schooled by Cokie Roberts, this popped out of Reed's mouth:
I think the social science is just simply not in yet on same-sex couples and I think the law has every right to set an ideal. And the ideal is a mother and a father.
Oh, Ralph, that was comedy gold. In practically the same breath you say that social science is conclusive while telling us the social science data just isn't there yet. Do you people even hear yourselves when you spout your nonsense? When you contradict yourself that embarrassingly on live television, it might just be best to just hang it up and go home.
Below is a clip of the segment. If you are a glutton for more punishment, here is a full ten minutes.
Martha Raddatz: Gay marriage has been a big one. Reverend Graham, I want to ask you about this. Just a few months after taking office, Pope Frances spoke out on the issue of homosexuality, saying that "If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency to homosexuality is not the problem. They are our brothers." You recently said that Congress could learn something from Vladamir Putin on the issue of homosexuals and adoption. Let's take a look at what you said.
Franklin Graham: Gays and lesbians cannot have children. Biologically, it is impossible.
Unidentified: They can adopt, but..
Graham: Yeah, they can recruit. I think I agreed with Putin. I think protecting our nation's children I think was probably a pretty smart thing to do.
Raddatz: I suspect you still support that. What you said. You still support Putin.
Graham: No, Putin is going to do what’s right for Russia, and not what’s right for America, but for Russia,” he opined. “We used to have a president in this country that did what’s right for this country, but we don’t seem to have that right now. Putin is going to make these decisions that he thinks is best for the Russian people, and he thinks that taking advantage of children, exploiting children, is wrong for any group so they passed a law. So, I do agree with him.
Raddatz: Do you agree with what Reverend Graham said in that interview?
Russell Moore: No, I agree that every child deserves both a mom and a dad. What I would disagree with is Vladamir Putin doing what's best for Russia. I have two children I adopted from a Russian orphanage and I see the way that Mr. Putin has used orphans as pawns. There are children in orphanages all over Russian who are waiting for parents. He has shut down adoption from America, so I don't see him as a sympathetic figure. But I would agree with Reverend Graham that a child needs both a mom and a dad.
Ralph Reed: By the way Martha, the social science on this is clear. This isn’t about Vladimir Putin, this is about what’s best for children here in the United States and the social science is irrefutable: a child who grows up in a home without the mother and father present, and they both very unique procreative, nurturing, and socializing role, they’re nine times more likely to end up dropping out of high school; they’re five times more likely to end up in poverty; and they’re three times more likely to end up addicted to drugs and alcohol.
Cokie Roberts: But the social science is also irrefutable that a child raised in an orphanage is in much worse shape than a child raised in a home. And the fact that people are willing to take these children and raise them, and raise them in a loving way is clearly better for these children.
Raddatz: Would you agree with that? Would you rather have a child sit in an orphanage and not have gay parents?
Reed: I think the social science is just simply not in yet on same-sex couples and I think the law has every right to set an ideal. And the ideal is a mother and a father. It’s also true, if we got better men we would be in better shape.
Moore: No disagreement there.
Graham: No disagreement here either.
Roberts: The reason the numbers have changed so fast and so dramatically on this question of gay marriage is because everybody in America now has experience with someone who is gay. People have come out of the closet and said, "I am your brother. I am your sister." I am your cousin. I am your friend.’ And then they have seen these families raising children and see these loving families
Now, on to Tops!
TOP COMMENTS
April 20, 2014
Thanks to tonight's Top Comments contributors! Let us hear from YOU
when you find that proficient comment.
From lineatus:
In my diary today about my nemesis bird, I posted a blurry, crappy photo that I'd taken with my phone. Ford Mandalay was able to clean it up and give a better view of the bird in question.
From FarWestGirl:
In kos' diary Saturday hate mail-a-palooza: Meet Robert Jackson, my new pen pal, there were two hysterical runs of banter. Totally classic, we've been missing these. Or at least, I have. ;-).
From lotac:
If we're going to have one way-out blast from the past, why not make it a double feature?
Rich in PA does that, in bink's diary The Nephew Just E-mailed Me. He's in Ukraine and says Putin is going to INVADE Poland!".
From Youffraita:
This comment from GeorgeBurnsWasRight, in vickijean's diary The Tina Conservatives is pretty much a primer in the "show, don't tell" school of writing. Unfortunately, one Tina Conservative is showing her rank hypocrisy...on TV.
|
TOP PHOTOS
April 19, 2014
Enjoy jotter's wonderful PictureQuilt™ below. Just click on the picture and it will magically take you to the comment that features that photo. Have fun, Kossacks!
|